The godless commit less crime, have longer marriages and are more highly educated than almost any other group in America.

Bit of a huge claim, but the statistics seem to indicate its veracity.

Quote

According to Federal Bureau of Prisons data, the number of responding people in prison acknowledging they were Catholic was 39 percent; Protestant, 35 percent; Muslim, 7 percent; Jewish, 2 percent; and godless, 0.2 percent (20 percent did not respond).

Since the number of godless is estimated to be 10 percent of the general population, all things being equal you would expect their prison population to be 10 percent.

Of course with 20% not responding there could be a huge % of godless liars deliberately hiding their godlessness to skew the outcome.Then there's this argument which made me chuckle.

Quote

If, as many people assume, the godless do not lead moral lives, you would expect the number to be greater than 10 percent. The fact that the actual number is 50 times less than expected can lead to only one of two conclusions: either the godless commit less crime than the religious or they’re too smart to get caught very often.

Other compelling stats

Quote

According to a Barna Research Group report, fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rate, followed by Jews and Baptists. The godless are tied with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate.

Quote

According to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey, the least-educated Americans are Jehovah’s Witnesses, followed by black Protestants and fundamentalist Christians. The most highly educated are reformed Jews, followed by Unitarian Universalists and the godless.

Quote

a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates.

This is also true in the United States. The more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates.

....and given the loudly claimed superior morality of the religious what do they do ?

They certainly do not address this reality, nor address the obvious causality with any intent to combat the fundamental cause of those shameful stats. Nor do they address the hypocrisy necessary to allow the continued inaccurate slander of the godless.

Quote

So what conclusion can be reached? It is obvious that you do not have to believe in a higher power in order to live a moral and successful life. Quite the opposite.

I won’t attempt to claim a correlation of religion with crime, infidelity and ignorance. However, it is total hypocrisy for those in such groups to claim that the godless are not and cannot be moral. Yet in a recent study atheists were believed to be no more trustworthy than rapists.

In spite of this easily obtained information, the groups with the highest crime rate, the poorest marriages and the lowest education continually strive to force their beliefs on the nonreligious.

Nothing new at all eh?

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Well it is a cosy set of numbers for atheists - but I do worry about these kinds of social research statistics (having been involved with a lot of market research.)

The first problem is that many people who report they belong to a religion are in fact (if you could force them to be honest) nonbelievers conforming to family expectations and peer pressures.I reported on census forms that I was RC for at least a decade after I was a thoroughly lapsed Catholic and for a further decade after I knew I was agnostic.So quite a number of those "theist" criminals may actually be in our camp

Second problem is that atheists are a motley crew. I have found that only a small few take a genuine interest in reason and morality to the extent they become courageous enough to in-principle identify themselves as atheists.

But many nonbelievers just don't give a shit about anything much - not even about being atheist - and certainly not stating openly they're atheist and having to deal with all the questions and prejudice that comes from the faithful. It wouldn't surprise me if a nontrivial proportion of the 20% jailbirds who don't respond are actually nonbelievers, what I'd probably label lazy atheists.

I was also troubled by the unknown 20% (a huge number) but then noticed they didn't present the statistics regarding the general population. If there is a similar 20% who didn't answer then that potentially strengthens the analysis. If less than 20% then it doesn't look as good.

I have seen results of a couple of those studies and what lets me give some credence to them is that very similar results are seen in different populations. Stuff like this:

Quote

In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates.

This is also true in the United States. The more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates.

The parallel between the states and the countries, to me, says there is validity to the analysis. A fractal-like recursion of the results from different population sizes makes it hard to argue against it..

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

The first problem is that many people who report they belong to a religion are in fact (if you could force them to be honest) nonbelievers conforming to family expectations and peer pressures.I reported on census forms that I was RC for at least a decade after I was a thoroughly lapsed Catholic and for a further decade after I knew I was agnostic.So quite a number of those "theist" criminals may actually be in our camp

again, I have to agree it's possible

but Samo does address the probability of repeated studies producing similar results beautifully with

The parallel between the states and the countries, to me, says there is validity to the analysis. A fractal-like recursion of the results from different population sizes makes it hard to argue against it..

Honestly, I am an elitist. Not by attitude or desire, but by sad realisation. The bell curve is real, the less than average is really, if looked at meanly, half our bloody population, and it applies to every goddamned thing.

My opinion

If someone is separated from the norm in terms of education, then whole educational sets will not be auto inserted into his/her framework (worldview etc).

Thus to master maths without the aid of the school systems deliberate applied education, the individual has to a degree, not to rediscover the wheel, but to re-discover the thinking of the person who designed the wheel, without the aid of teacher input.

Thus the isolated individuals understanding or mastery maths is a process where every step of the way, they've had to work shit out, and there seems to be a good chance that that individual's fundamental understanding of the subject may be significant levels deeper than the veneer of school day maths mass taught to the disinterested.

Similarly, morality when applied as a generic spray-job to unformed minds with no inherent rational basis for following it other than "god says so", may not stand up to the temptations and distortions of real life as well as the self taught moralities of any non-religious individual who has come to his own decisions re: morality via thought and consideration rather than the rote learning of the churched.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

...and then you have weirdos like me. I generally identify as "Christian" as in "believes in Christ." But when I joined the Army there was no option to not pick a denomination so in my stubbornness not to be pinned into a denomination I picked "None."

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

^^^I would probably agree, Nick, but I'm too busy pillaging right now to take the time to read the whole thread.

As someone said on twitter yesterday (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording) "Today would be a good day to put the top down on the convertible and go on a three-county crime spree".

I'm good with that.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

The bell curve is real, the less than average is really, if looked at meanly, half our bloody population, and it applies to every goddamned thing.

This is not necessarily a bad thing if the average is decent enough. For example, an average "genius". But yes, sadly, too many of the human race's averages are, well, disappointing.

As for discovering things for oneself vs learning them: yes and no. This is a very valid point. But it is better for some things than others. Working things out for oneself can also put one well behind the curve while building upon one's learning can elevate one. Nuclear physics for example.

I need to ponder a bit more on the validity per morality but my initial reaction is that you are probably right about that.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

As for discovering things for oneself vs learning them: yes and no. This is a very valid point. But it is better for some things than others. Working things out for oneself can also put one well behind the curve while building upon one's learning can elevate one. Nuclear physics for example.

The obvious flaw in my metaphor, was I didn't input enough value to ones actual motivation.

Standing on the shoulders of giants will always (be worth a screenshot in Skyrim) give you a greater perspective, and so, agreed, that building upon ones learning can elevate.

So learning school maths because it is compulsory while not having the slightest interest in school or maths at all, will not a nuclear physicist make.But personal motivation with or without the benefit of normal education system does create rocket scientists.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Hickam

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

The obvious flaw in my metaphor, was I didn't input enough value to ones actual motivation.

Standing on the shoulders of giants will always (be worth a screenshot in Skyrim) give you a greater perspective, and so, agreed, that building upon ones learning can elevate.

So learning school maths because it is compulsory while not having the slightest interest in school or maths at all, will not a nuclear physicist make.But personal motivation with or without the benefit of normal education system does create rocket scientists.

I wouldn't say it is a flaw - just not complete.

This, I feel, is one of the problems with (American) schools of today (and recent decades at least). Instead of making the subjects interesting to give students motivation to learn so they can do better in school and in life, the knowledge is presented as dry facts unrelated to the students' lives. If the brighter students don't learn everything well, how can the average or below average be expected to learn anything well? And how can we find out that someone thought to be below average because they were bored out of their skull, was really gifted after all?

Unfortunately we now also have the problem of theists getting organized and realizing if they can damage children's knowledge base then their learning ability suffers and then the religions can keep them in control better. And I really wish that was just a paranoid delusion of mine. I look for facts to keep the mild paranoid thoughts from having any ground to support them and I hate it when I find facts that support the dark suspicions. At which time I fall back on what someone told me (and I later found out was a known saying): Don't attribute to maliciousness what can instead be attributed to stupidity.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

The first problem is that many people who report they belong to a religion are in fact (if you could force them to be honest) nonbelievers conforming to family expectations and peer pressures.

Couldn't agree more. Statistics to do with faith are as pointless as ejector seats in helicopters.

Of course you realise that that comfortably enables you not to be associated with the inconvenient aspects of masses, while not addressing whatsoever any of the points raised .

And as always, the horror of the tar brush is not just about the stain, but also about the unfairness of such black or white judgements.

Of course such stats cannot discern the greys. That is a given.

And when you look at the stats in every category, the unspoken real outcome is the awareness that the vast majority of individuals in all categories appear law abiding (at least).So as per usual, the members of any particular category, if indeed they fall within the vast majority of good people, are going to feel defensive regarding any data assembly that generates an outcome that doesn't appear to represent them or their personal mores accurately.

Let's look at this another way mm

Let's for the sake of your argument say that every one of these stats is flawed.

Let's propose that if people were being strictly honest the reported numbers of atheists would be higher and theists lower.

Let's propose the idea that those adjusted numbers would actually mirror the categorical percentage breakdown found outside of prison.

Then I ask you three questions specific to the OP linked article addressing the hypocrisy of the theist attack on atheists' morality and trustworthiness

1. If a god given morality is the only real source of trustworthy and accurate morality,(as claimed by some theists in their condemnation of atheists) why is there (even with this hypothetical's necessarily adjusted figures) absolutely no discernible difference in "apparent and observable" morality between the categories?

If atheists and theists are jailed in direct proportion to their population stats, it only shows god does not enter the equation what so ever.

and

2. If there is no observable effect (due to the morality's source) on the efficacy of the specific categorical morality as a guiding tool, what actual tool, or what actual database, are these theists using to condemn atheists out of hand to be untrustworthy and immoral?

3. Would you agree that to maintain this hypocritical condemnation of atheists even in the face of these (massively tweaked for the hypotheticals) figures would be an immoral act by any theist doing so?

And mm please understand, I am not including you among them, I am talking about the theists who do condemn atheists out of hand to be untrustworthy and immoral.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 10:38:38 PM by kin hell »

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Then I ask you three questions specific to the OP linked article addressing the hypocrisy of the theist attack on atheists' morality and trustworthiness

1. If a god given morality is the only real source of trustworthy and accurate morality,(as claimed by some theists in their condemnation of atheists) why is there (even with this hypothetical's necessarily adjusted figures) absolutely no discernible difference in "apparent and observable" morality between the categories?

It's going to be hard to answer that without "preaching" or performing the "one true Christian" routine. I think the answer lies not so much in the source of the morality but the extent to which the person who identifies as theist has an actual heart and soul relationship with God. In my experience, simply believing that God exists and is the only ultimate moral authority is unlikely to make any difference to the deeds performed by that person. That person would be statistically indistinguishable from an atheist. It makes no difference whether God is the moral authority or something else is. Both theist and atheist will be exposed to circumstances and temptations which result in a breaking of the moral law in equal measure.

However - I firmy believe (through personal experience and through what is written in the bible) that someone who not only believes God is the moral authority but genuinely asks God for forgiveness through Jesus will be given the promised gift of the Holy Spirit - God dwelling in that persons heart and giving them strength to overcome situations and temptations that might otherwise have led to breaking the moral law. If there was some way of statistically analysing the actions of the person I just described, I think you would see a big difference in things such as incarceration, divorce rates, tax cheating, infidelity...hate mongering. But of course it isn't possible to do so, hence my original coment.

I'm not saying that this person ^ is perfect and won't ever break moral laws. But I am saying they are less likely to, and probably in ways that aren't really outwardly observable. I could say an awful lot more on this, but I hope this provides at least my prespective.

2. If there is no observable effect (due to the morality's source) on the efficacy of the specific categorical morality as a guiding tool, what actual tool, or what actual database, are these theists using to condemn atheists out of hand to be untrustworthy and immoral?

It is ridiculous for any theist to single out atheists as being untrustworthy and immoral. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the fact every single person suffers from the same sin disease. The only person they should be singling out is Jesus, as the only way to be saved from the disease

3. Would you agree that to maintain this hypocritical condemnation of atheists even in the face of these (massively tweaked for the hypotheticals) figures would be an immoral act by any theist doing so?

As above, it's a stupid and immoral thing to do regardless of what a set of statistics says.

I think it is far more significant that regions of the world where more people profess religious belief have worse human development stats than more atheistic places. It appears that the more atheists in a given population, the nicer the place is in most of the ways we can measure. Lower violent crime, higher education levels, better health, less divorce, less teen pregnancy, less poverty, etc.

Japan and Sweden are not paradise-- of course every place has problems. But most definitely not the foul sin-filled hellholes of greed and corruption that many religious people think an "atheist lifestyle" would produce. Even religious people apparently benefit from living where the "atheist lifestyle" is practiced by the majority.

Where is the positive influence that god supposedly has on people lives? How is it that atheists can be more law-abiding, peaceful and moral? There is no sensible religious response to this fact.

........... will be given the promised gift of the Holy Spirit - God dwelling in that persons heart and giving them strength to overcome situations and temptations that might otherwise have led to breaking the moral law. If there was some way of statistically analysing the actions of the person I just described, I think you would see a big difference in things such as incarceration, divorce rates, tax cheating, infidelity...hate mongering.

^ This is the sentence where we go separate ways.

- My religious mother falls into your holy spirit category here, fitting into what you may think of as "trying to be without sin." But she will be the first to say she is no different than the bad ole divorced, incarcerated, whore mongering, tax cheating rapist murdering hell's angel that tells god to f**k himself. She honestly believes she is no better.

I like that. I like that realization of how equal we all are. Doesn't mean I agree with her belief in god - does mean I respect those that fight to live a just life. Atheist or theist.

My mom also doesn't like this "Jesus Saves" stuff, as if we all ARE diseased. She likes the idea of a Jesus-like conception that makes everyone realize we have absolutely nothing to fear ever, and no matter what we believe or do not believe, we all are fine, and need to sing and dance the way we want to, think the way we want to, all the while keeping in mind that this horribly used word "sin" that gets so twisted so often, is really telling us that trying to live the just life is also the way to live life in the easiest and most enjoyable way - but again, for me, no god needed or present.

As I said, I don't think belief in God prevents anyone from acting immorally.

I have heard people say the same thing as in Adzgari's sig, that religion has prevented them from killing people. I wonder if the facts that killing people is illegal everywhere, and that prison is no fun, also has a deterrent effect for some? It is pretty clear that belief in god does not seem to make people behave better, or the prison recidivism and execution rates in the US bible belt would be much lower.

But what about the evidence that religious belief seems to have, at best, no effect, or even a negative effect? That religious belief seems to make people behave worse? That people who claim to have no belief in any gods seem to create better societies overall?

Similarly, this is a quote from my christian cousin (he's a "true christian" TM - Elm Bible school graduate) when we were discussing whether or not gays should be allowed to marry just a couple days ago. Different topic but he went into this and I quote...

Quote

Actually, people need to belive that they were born in sin. Yes, I believe that being gay is wrong, it's a sin, because it's not part of God's character. If you steal it makes you a thief = sin. If you lie makes you a liar = sin. Porn, lust, murder, homosexuality, pride, covetousness, greed, envy, drunkeness are all sin. There is no mental gymnastics here. They are all wrong and we are all born into them. We are all born sinners. We have all done one if not more of these things. Not just gays/lesbians, everyone is born a sinner, everyone's life is sinful because everyone has sinned and missed this mark.

It's simple. There's no gymnastics here at all, no circular reasoning, no bigotry, no prejudice. Sin, is against every single person. And it is a supernatural connotation, first and foremost. Yes, it's true that society runs better when these things dont happen, like murder, or stealing, or adultery. It's true that we've discovered more things that we dont do because it prevents growth, but it still doesnt change what sin is, which is not just 'bad things that society shouldnt do.'

I dont have to accept your way of thinking and you dont have to accept mine. I won't ever think that being gay is right, or any other sin. You may think that there's nothing wrong with being gay, you may always think that. It's the way things are and always will be.

But the issue is, even though we hold completely opposite beliefs, we don't have to hate each other, which is what people come to. As soon as i or you dont accept or tolerate what you or I believe in, one party or both end up hating each other. That's my issue. That's my concern, which is peace. I hope this new law brings peace to some degree, which it prolly wont.

Edited - I invited him to come onto this forum and become a member to discuss topics as he sees fit. He said "I read most of the quotes from the christians on that forum and none of them seem very intelligent or well informed on the bible"

Well... How 'bout you become one of those christians here then finally! still didn't want to.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 09:01:06 PM by DVZ3 »

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."